THE ORIGIN OF MAN AND THE UNITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume X, Issue 497, 20 October 1882, Page 19

THE ORIGIN OF MAN AND THE UNITY OF THE HUMAN SPECIES.

t % (Concluded.) In his book on the origin of man (•« Is Darwin Right ") Mr. William Denton positively denies the unity of tbe hsman racw, »nd explains tne multiplicity of human races by the various simian type* from which they have descended.— (•• Multiplicity of Human Origin," 155160 If all men are descended— as stated in the Bcriptures— from Adam and Ere, they all form but one family— no matter what may be the colour of their skin, or the country they iuhabit. To deny this unity of origin >s to destroy the great principle of fraternity, which 19 the foundation of all our social and religious institutions ; hence the necessity to examine this question — according to scientists — geographically considered, the various races of mankind are divided inta Europeans, Asiatics, Africans, Americans, Australians and Polynesians. According to the colour of their skin, they are divided into white, tawny, copper-coloured and black. The white are the Europeans ; the tawny are the Hindoos, the Persians, the Tartars, the Arabs and 4jkeJews ; the red vr copper-coloured are the American Indians ; W^\lack are "the African and Australian negroes. According to tbe shape of their skull, their colour and other ethnological characteristics, they may be divided into five principal families— namely, 1, the Caucasian ; 2, the Mongolian ; 3, the Ethiopic ; 4, the American -, 5, the Malay. Ist. Tbe Caucasian. — It iB tbe most beautiful type. All Europeans (with the exception of the inhabitants of Lapland and Finland), and also the Hindoos, the Persians, the Jews, the Egyptians and Abyssinians belong to this group. Characteristic* : 1, ah oral skull and face ; 2, a fair, soft, wavy hair ; 3, a narrow nose ; 4. a small mouth. 2nd. The Mongolian.— The Chinese and Tartars belong to this group, and also, it is thought, the inhabitants of Lapland and Finland. Characteristics : 1, an oblong skull ; 2, a flat face ; 3, eyes small and set obliquely ; 4, nose short and broad ; 5, hair long, straight and black, but very scanty ; 6, a sallow, olive complexion. 3rd. The Ethiopian — This group "is composed of tbe inhabitants of Africa, Egypt, Abyssinia, Madagascar, Borneo and Australia. Characteristics : 1. thick lips ; 2, large eyes ; 3, crisp and woolly hair; 4, black skin. 4th. The American.— 'l his pioup includes all the tribes of America, except the Esquimaux, who are supposed to belong to the Mongolian group. Characteristics : 1, a high but retreating forehead ; 2, deep-set eyes ; 3, high cheek-bones ; 4, a very aquiline noee ; 5, a large month ; 6, very little beard ; 7, black and lank hair ; 8, a red or copper-coloured complexion. sth, The Malay. — The Malay includes all the inhabitants of New Zealand, the Philippines, the Polynesian Mands, and the Indian Archipelago. Characteristics : 1, a small skull ; 2, a short, broad nose ; 3, eyes set obliquely ; 4, lank, coarse, black hair ; 5. a tawny or blackish brown complexion. In all these five groups there is no essential difference. The first difference is the skin and its tints. But this is but an accidental circumstance. [Cuvier, after having attentively examined the skin of the negroes, found that they possessed the same natural elements as the white men. — See D. Melia's " The Origin of Man," p. 60.] Everywhere in nature we see objects of the same kind having different colours. In mineralogy w« have pink, blue, white and dark granite ; we have red, wMt<*, blue and dark clay. In the vegetable kingdom we have the white, the grey and the black poplar. In the animal kingdom we have the black oxen of Scotland ; the dun or spotted oxen of Devonshire ; the grey oxen of Hungary, and the red oxen of Franconia. The hog is said to be black in China, white in Normandy, and of a reddish browa colour in Berkshire. Are we to wonder, then, that all men are not of the same complexion ? The different tints of the human akin are due to physical influences, like tbe colour of stones, vegetables, and other animals. The Becond difference is the hair. It is scientifically certain that the human hair is everywhere essentially tbe same. The hair of tbe negro is woolly, but is not wool. Wool is thicker in summer than in winter, but hair is the same all the year round ; wool falls off in masses and all at once, Lair falls off gradually j wool is the same at the extremity as elsewhere, the hair tapers to a point. Is it not evident, therefore, that the mere colour, curl, or quantity of hair cannot constitute an essential difference, since even among Europeans, one has a black hair, another a red hair, one a curly and another a straight hair? The third difference is in the anatomical construction particularly of the 9kull — but even among us skulls are not alike but greatly differ almost in every one. That is bHt an accident, and as we have already stated, there is aa essential difference between the human cranium and that of the monkey. Dana says that the capacity of the brain of the ape is one-half less than that of man. — (" Gcol." of 1876, p. 603.) Another very great proof that all the different varieties of men belong to the same species is furnished by the Egyptian mummies, which are 2000 or 3000 years old. These mummies have been examined attentively by Lacepede, Lamark, and Cuvier, and they all affirm that there is no essential difference between the most ancient mummies and the human bodi s of our own times. Mr. Joseph Cook, in his able lecture on biology and modern science, shows the eophistry and falsehood of the system of evolution of Huxley, Tyndall, Ernst HKckel, and others, from the concessions of evolutionists themselves. For instance, evolutionists admit (1) that spontaneous generation must have occurred or the doctrine of evolution cannot be true. '' If this hypsi&esis of evolution is true." saj s Huxley, " living matter must have arisen from not living matter.'"— (Huxley, Prof., C.H., " Eocyc Brit." cd. of 1876 ; '■ Art Biology," p. 689.) And the same Huxley confesses that " the present state of knowledge furnishes na with no liuk between the living and the not living " (p. 679.) He positively states (p. 689) that " there is not a shadow of evidence that spontaneous generation does take place or has taken place." Huxley, therefore, expressly concedes that all the evidence we have is against the theory that spontaneous generation is possible. — (" Joseph Cook's Biology," p. 33.) (2) Darwin, Hackel, and Denton, say that there is an affinity and similarity between the anatomy of man and the ape, I'rofessor Dana ("Geology" of 1875, p. 603), states that noremaina of fossil man found until the present time, has any approach to the

man-ape of evolutionists. (3) In or^er to show the possibility of evolntion, the same authors (Darwin, Ha'ckel, Denton. etc..) pretend that sometimes hybrids are not sterile ; but tbe sterility of hybtidi is affirmed by experience, and the authority of several hundred scientist*. (4) The advocates of evolution admit that the system of natural selection must break down if any animal can be shown to possess organs of no use in the struegle for existence. Mr. Darwin himself is obliged to admit (" Descent of Man," vol. 11.. p. 387) that man, as well as every other animal, presents structures which are not now of any service to him. Thus Mr. Darwin himself confesses that his theory of natural selection is undeniable. (5) In order to span the chasm between the living and the not. living. Hackel. Hurley, and Strauss imagined a gelatinous matt-r found in the bed of the deep seas teeming with life. This jelly-like snbsUnce was supposed to be transparent, colourless, and stiuctureless. It was said to be a protoplasm from which all livine things originated ; gelatinous protoplasm was called Bathvbius Hackelii, thn great deep-sea progenitor ot all living things. Hackel showed, or attempted to show, with beautiful plates, how all terrestrial life came to the present time from tbe Batbybius.-(" History of Creation," vol. 1., p. 184-344 ; vol. 11., p. 63.) But alas 1 for the evolutionists, in 1875 the would-be Bathybius of HSokel and Huxley was discovered by tbe scientists of the ship Challenger to be sulphate of lime, which whpn dissolved, chrystallised as gypsum. If you want more inforimtion on tbe subject, I invite you to read Jnseph Cook's remarkable lectures on biology (Glasgow : David Bryce and Fon ; 1878). In order to deny creation and Divire Providence evolutionists must believe the most incredible things— namely, 1. That matter is eternal and uncreated ; 2. that without any first mover it has given motion to itself ; 3. that by the fortuitous law of evolution it has produced all the things that we behold, from the protozoa to man ; 4. that all tbe beautiful harmony and wonderful varWy of creatures, and all the symmetry of the universe have been produced without any external intelligent directing hand. That is. without any proof, they admit the most absurd theories, each incomparably more incomprehensible than the dogma of God and creation. Admitting the existence of God. every difficulty vanishes. God creates matter — or nature. — Matter is subservient to the will of God, and obeys His orderß ; it began to act by Hia will only, anl continues still to produce creatures — each according to Its kind — by His c or consent. Nature never deviates from tbe rules forescribed by God, and this explains the harmony of creation, and the stability of physical and metaphysical phenomena. Now, laiies and eentlemen, I leave you to decide whether, with our learned friends the evolutionists, you will acknowledge the inhabitants of the woods, nay, the protozoa of tbe primitive seas, or even the won lerful Bathybim of Ha'cke), for your progenitor, or believe with Moses you were created by God — intelligent and immortal. I should have many other things to tell you. but I have already occupied too much of your time. I have now only to thank you for the patience with which you have listened te my words, and wish you all a very happy night.